Re: [registrars] Domain name litigation

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

rick & all...

the domain name may very well be a valuable asset but that doesn't make it
property as such.

from a layman's perspective, what I believe you have ( is a "contract for
services to be provided".. the owner of the contract has an asset (i.e. the
rights in that contract) but that is not the same as "property"

my 2 cents worth

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>
To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 16:56 PM
Subject: Re: [registrars] Domain name litigation


>
>
> my favorite quote "As anyone who owns a domain name knows, they are
> valuable property."
>
> isn't it time we discuss the service -vs- property issue of domains.
>
> if everyone thinks they are property but the lawers of registryies and
> registrars, why aren't they?
>
> -rick
>
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>
> > I would recommend everyone to keep an eye on these two pieces of
litigation.
> >
> > SEX.COM
> > Network Solutions/VeriSign Legal Claim That Domain Name Can Be Cancelled
at
> > Any Time to Be Heard by U.S. Court of Appeals
> > http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020716/fltu015_1.html
> >
> > GOLF.TV (from BNA Highlights - Michael Geist)
> > A California appellate court has ruled in favor of a Korean man who won
an
> > auction conducted by the dot-tv registrar for
> > the golf.tv domain.  Dot-tv tried to get out of the deal by arguing that
its
> > acknowledgement of the winning $1000 bid
> > was an error, but the court held that a valid contract was formed.
Decision
> > at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B151987.PDF
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
>